Discussion Dates: Friday 18th January to Friday 25th January
1.What would you give this book out of 10? Why?
GENEVIEVE: 7/10. I enjoyed this book and read it very quickly. It took a little while to get into it but then I was hooked. I really liked the character of Dora and thought it was a fascinating account of this period of history from a different perspective, namely the resistance movement in England and France rather than within Germany itself. Sometimes I was a little bit confused about who some of the minor characters were but I found it quite profound in some ways and well written. However it has not been a book that has really 'stayed' with me that much and I haven't really thought it about it much since I finished it, I think it didn't have quite the emotional impact that it could have considering the subject matter.
Michelle: I still haven't finished this book. I am stuck with Toller in a hotel and just can't get into it at all. I figure some pretty horrible things are about to happen to them, especially Dora, so I can't say I'm all that motivated to keep plodding on. I very rarely leave a book unfinished so I'm looking forward to your comments to see if I should keep going.
MEL: 9.5/10 I love this book. I think that it is beautifully crafted and a really very interesting story about a period of history (leading up to WW2) that I haven't previously paid much attention to. On occasions the sections in Toller's hotel room that Michelle refers to above does get bogged down a little bit, hence my hesitation to give the book full marks.
Sam: 6/10 Gee - I took more than three attempts to get into this book - and didn't fall in love with it along the way. I did love the theme and the characters of Dora and Ruth - but felt like the sections in Tollers hotel room were dull. In saying that, I would recommend this book because I think that it shows part of history that isnt well known, and for that reason is worth a read.
Sharyn: 7/10. The book is so well written, researched and historically important that I feel I should have enjoyed it more than I did. Like Gen, the book didn't 'stay' with me and I felt it lacked power given the importance of the topic. I first read this book around September last year and I am furiously re-reading it to refresh my memory as I've read a lot of other books in the meantime. I am enjoying the book a lot more the second time around - in particular, I am finding the peripheral characters a lot easier to follow and enjoying the characters' observations about life and love etc. I hope to come back and answer more of these questions later on in the week as I finish the book.
Cath 7/10 I enjoyed this book and thought it was very well written. I initially found it challenging to navigate the different time periods but it was a challenge that I really enjoyed. I agree with all the previous comments that it was a very interesting look at history from a perspective that I haven't seen before.
Lucy: 8/10 I took a little while to get into it but really enjoyed it. I thought it was easy to understand and remember the historical facts. I read it alongside another book that dealt with the resistance during the second world war so it all fitted in nicely.
Michelle: 6/10 Based on Mel's 9.5 rating (wow!) I dedicated some time and concentrated on this book, and after around page 120 it started to pick up, and I have to say I raced through the rest completely captivated - like Sharyn says, another thing to love about book club! What an incredible, gut wrenching story. I have to agree with all your comments below, the story, the characters and the questions they raised are all quite affecting. For me, the let down of this novel was the dual view points. I would have preferred Ruth tell us the whole story, and Toller's input come through his autobiography that she was reading. Toller as a narrator, or even as a character, didn't do a lot for me. Did you see what Dora saw in him? I couldn't see the magnificence about him, but I don't know anything of him in real life. Has anyone read any of his work? Another part that didn't really flow for me was that Ruth's older character was so different from her younger self. She changes from being a wallflower, carried along by the others to being 'plucky and spunky' as Mel so rightly puts it. Maybe those changes can be attributed to what happens, but I think a person's characteristics are usually there already and just heightened as time goes by. I just couldn't see them as the same person. And the only other thing I wanted to say was that the descriptive parts about Sydney made me so incredibly homesick, they were so beautifully evocative. OH, and just to add a little bit more, according to the internet (I just can't help googling these people) in real life it's possible that Toller's suicide was actually a murder too... Anna Funder makes it clear without a doubt that it was suicide but it does make the whole saga so much more sinister (if that's even possible)
2.All That I Am deals with a part of history that has slipped into obscurity for many of us. Does the novel suggest that we've failed to learn the lessons of this history?
GENEVIEVE: Yikes that is a big question! Perhaps?!
MEL: I'm not sure if that is what the novel is suggesting, but it is unsurprising that the lead up to the war in Europe has slipped somewhat into obscurity given the mammoth and horrendous events that followed from 1939 to 1945
Sam: Like Mel, Im not sure if thats what the novel is suggesting - but I was really intrigued by the topic, and amazed that I hadn't ever come across the topic - or even given it much thought. Really highlighting that this part of history, for me, had slipped into obscurity.
Sharyn: The fact that a lot of people aren't familiar with the resistance movement immediately after WW1 leading up to the rise of the Nazi party and WW2 doesn't necessarily mean that we've failed to learn the lessons of history. It seems that most literature and cinema has focused on the resistance movement during WW2 (Charlotte Gray by Sebastien Faulks comes immediately to mind) and, as Mel said, it is unsurprising that it has slipped off the radar given the events of WW2 that followed. Is this period of history a reminder of how Hitler's rise might have been avoided if the world had listened to and acted upon what the resistance were saying earlier on? While Britain etc gave exile to the resistance leaders, they were restricted from engaging in political activities which affected their influence while in exile. One quote that stands out for me is: "The British government was insisting on dealing with Hitler as a reasonable fellow, as if hoping he'd turn into one". It's hard to accept that, even if we do have the benefit of hindsight. I certainly don't feel knowledgeable enough in the area of international relations to make any meaningful comments, but perhaps lessons were learned and this period of history influenced world leaders in the way that they dealt with other dictators more pro-actively and aggressively post WW2 (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). I could be missing the point though.
Cath: I find the whole topic of the rise of Nazi Germany so fascinating and I found this book a real insight into how such a powerful force can assert itself - influencing not just it's own population but also the leaders of other powerful nations. How does this happen? Could it happen again? Do we ever learn from the lessons of history?
Lucy: I don't think it is suggesting we have failed to learn the lessons of history but it is highlighting how 'blind' people/ governments were to what was going on in Germany despite numerous attempts by people to tell what was really happening.
3.The author has invented a plot using elements which are real, but it points to different causes for certain events, particularly those in the room in Bloomsbury, from which the real-life inquest drew another conclusion. To what extent to you think that Funder has written All That I Am as a kind of detective work? Can it be argued that the work of a novelist and a detective are similar, both having to imagine the motivations of others?
GENEVIEVE: In reading the book it is difficult to tell what elements are 'fiction' or 'non-fiction', but I am sure it involved Funder undertaking lots of research and imaginative detective work.
MEL: This is difficult to answer as I came to the book 100% cold on the story, but I do agree with Gen that I'm sure Funder put a great deal of time and effort into her research, and this book presents as her hypothesis on what actually happened.
Cath: The book was so well researched and so authentic which was part of its appeal.
Lucy: I also read the book not knowing how much of it was based in truth until reading Funder's notes at the end. I agree with Cath that it was incredibly well researched, many of the conversations being taken directly from other sources and that this made it so much more engaging. I don't think a novelist and detective are similar. Funder is not attempting to solve the bloomsbury bit or in any way trying to force us to believe her take on it. I liked how she dealt with that and it felt very much as if Ruth would be able to visualise what actually happened knowing Dora so well and living with that constant fear that something of that sort would happen.
4.To what degree do you think the characters in All That I Am are ordinary people doing extraordinary things? Is your reading of the novel affected by knowing that some of the characters are based on real people?
GENEVIEVE: Well they seemed pretty extraordinary to me, especially Dora.Yes it definitely affected my engagement with the novel, knowing they were based on real people.
MEL: I too found Dora to be quite an amazing and individual person. It heightened my enjoyment of the book knowing that it was based on real people.
Sam: The fact that the characters were based on real people was what kept me reading this book! I really was inspired by the actions of Dora and Ruth - they made me want to be more brave in my own life.
Sharyn: The main characters didn't seem very ordinary to me - they were all very talented quite apart from the fact that they were doing extraordinary things. I also enjoyed reading about some of the famous people that the group associated with - such as Albert Einstein and W.H. Auden - as this made me realise just how influential the group was.
Cath: the characters were all very inspiring. It did make me wonder which side I would be on if I found myself in the same situation. I would like to think that I would be a brave resistance fighter but when I think about how I face the huge challenges of our own time (I don't do anything extraordinary to help refugees, or combat climate change or a million other moral challenges) I think I realise that I would never be a Dora.
Lucy: It is always inspiring to read about people like Dora and Ruth and yes, I definitely think it is more engaging knowing they are real people. I loved the way other more famous people were referred to in the book, with no fanfare, because that did show you that these were ordinary (albeit intelligent and determined) people doing extraordinary things.
5.With reference to Toller, Dora asks Ruth, 'Do you think if you love someone there are parts of them you should pretend are not there?' How does the novel deal with the way in which loving someone can blind you to the reality of them?
GENEVIEVE: Well Ruth 'chose' to be blind to the fact that Hans was gay, and that he was a Nazi sympathiser. I was quite fascinated by the relationship between Toller and Dora and their need for each other and yet their need for other people too.
Lucy: I felt that was Dora's way of loving unconditionally. She was not pretending parts of Toller were not there. She confronted him with them and then accepted and tried to understand them. It was one of the reasons for Toller's obsession with her.
Sharyn: Like Lucy, I don't think that Dora was blind to the reality of Toller. She was the one person who truly understood his insecurities, self doubt, narcissism, depression and desperate need for approval and loved him in spite of it. It was Ruth who was blind to Hans' reality - his homosexuality and his tretchery.
6. The novel is told in past and present, and the voices of two characters, Ruth and Ernst. What do these different viewpoints add to the telling?
GENEVIEVE: I was quite engaged with the story of Ruth in Sydney, less so with Ernst in New York.
MEL: As above. Normally I can be irritated when a book starts and ends with and continually refers back to an elderly character, but not so in this book. I loved 'old' Ruth and I enjoyed knowing that due to all she had seen and survived that she had become very plucky and spunky.
Sharyn: Ruth was a wise woman and I enjoyed her viewpoint. Plucky is such a good way of describing her, Mel. It was a reminder that there are a lot of migrants in Australia who have experienced things that we can only imagine. Her pedestrian (but safe!) life in Australia was such a contrast to her exciting but dangerous life in Europe. I feel that she was a more trustworthy voice than Toller, who was very self-absorbed and selfish. However, Toller's voice gave us a greater insight into his insecurities and flaws than the story would otherwise have conveyed and so I think the two viewpoints were important.
Cath: I really enjoyed the way the book navigated the past and present. I also felt (like Sharyn) that to meet Ruth in her old age in Sydney, one would never guess at what her life had been and how we can never know what people have experienced.
Lucy: I suppose Ruth's character in the present is the only truly authentic bit as she was a friend of Funder's. I agree with Sharn that it is amazing to think that there are people going about their daily lives who have lived in such contrast to how they live now. I think it worked well having the different view points and the different times. I sometimes had to remind myself that Toller's part was told so shortly after the event and that at the time the true atrocities of what went on in Germany had not happened.
7. Describe Dora. How did Ruth see her? What about Ernst? Discuss their relationships. How did Dora influence Ruth? How did Ernst influence Dora? Why was she so devoted to him? Dora saw Ernst as a hero. Do you think she was braver than he was?
GENEVIEVE: Dora was a fascinating and brave woman.
MEL: I think that Dora originally saw Ernst as a hero, but yes she was far braver (and more creative in terms of the way she lived her life) than he was. Dora is a wonderfully drawn character.
Sharyn: I thought Dora (together with Bertie) was the most committed to the cause and the bravest. She was far braver than Toller because she risked her life many times in the name of the cause including twice to save his manuscript. There's one passage in the book where Dora talks about conquering fear of death as a way of standing up to a dangerous enemy. Toller says he doesn't want to die but he's prepared to die and Dora says it's hard not to want to die sometimes. I think she was affected more by what was happening in Germany than he was - probably because he had his artistry to fall back on whereas politics was her whole life. She worshipped Toller because he had the unique power to move and unite people to support the resistance through his charisma and artistry, whereas she was a behind-the-scenes type of person. In turn, Ruth worshipped Dora because she admired her fearlessness and her commitment and the fact that she wasn't doing it for fame, status or personal gain.
8. What were the forces that held Dora, Ruth, Ernst, Hans, and their friend Bertie together? How much did their youth contribute to their idealism? What kept them from falling under the spell of Hitler like so many of their contemporaries?
MEL: I asked myself that last question as I was reading the book. Their intellect perhaps? Naturally their youth made them feel invincible. Cath: I think this is a fascinating question and have alluded to this in one of my previous responses. Why did some people resist Hitler when so many were influenced by him. I think being young and childless is a big reason. Once you have a family, protecting your family becomes such a driver of your actions that I think you are more likely to seek refuge in the promises of Nazi Germany than to join a resistance movement (or is that just a cop out?)
Sharyn: I think the forces that kept the group together were idealism, passion, commitment and a strong sense of fairness and justice. It hadn't occurred to me that it could be their youth and lack of responsibility that contributed to their idealism (I assumed it was an innate characteristic), but that's a good point. Both Toller and Dora and Ruth and Dora discussed the baby issue and the general consensus was that you couldn't bring a baby into their world. I agree with Cath that it's much easier to compromise your beliefs when you have a family to care for and protect.
9. Would you call Dora, Ernst, and their friends inspiring or foolish? Do people like Dora and Ernst make a difference in the world? What drives someone to sacrifice her life for a cause?
GENEVIEVE: Inspiring, and yes I think people like this make a difference in the world.
MEL: I found Dora to be very inspiring, and too Ernst to a lesser extent.
Sam: I agree with Genevieve - I think that people like Dora do make a difference in the world. I think that people who are driven to sacrifice their life for a cause are unique individuals and act like this when the life they want is threatened.
Cath: I found Dora, Toller and Ruth all inspiring but I'm not so sure about how much they made a difference. Did Dora's death influence history in any way or was she just a martyr for a futile cause? I would like to think she made a difference but Hitler became so powerful, WW2 and the genocide of millions of Jews still happened.
Lucy: I think people like this definitely make a difference. Dora may have only been a small cog in the world but they all did enough to make Hitler and his top officials sit up and listen to them and ultimately silence them. I recently read 'Double Cross' which is a fascinating true account of how a small group of spies and resistance workers almost singlehandedly brought about the success of the allied invasion that was the turning point and ultimately the end of the second world war. I think perhaps we do not understand how much influence these sorts of people had because it is only very recently that files about them and their lives and the work they did have been made public.
Sharyn: Definitely inspiring. Passion, commitment and fearlessness leads people to sacrifice their life for a cause. They definitely made a difference although obviously not enough of a difference to prevent what happened.
10. What caused Hans to act as he did? Did you see this coming?
GENEVIEVE: Fear, and yes there were lots of hints
MEL: Yes he was fearful. I wasn't surprised by what Hans did, but I was a little more focussed on the fact that Ruth was going to find out that he was gay!
Sam: I was shocked by what Hans did - not about the gay thing - but definitely about way he sold out his friends! Definitely a weak character.
Cath: I think Hans character added authenticity and depth to the novel because not everyone can be a strong moral character like Dora. Hans was flawed and disappointing.
Lucy: I didn't see such a drastic betrayal coming although you could see he was desperate to find a place for himself in the world. The transcript of the first report on his turning was very interesting. He was as intelligent and determined as the other characters but without the same strong moral compass.
Sharyn: Hans was a deeply insecure and socially ambitious person who was constantly trying to prove his worth, probably as a result of his modest upbringing. He needed to feel important and feel that he was succeeding in life and his betrayal was a way of achieving this. It was quite obvious that he was the weak link in the group, although I didn't necessarily think he would deliberately betray anyone; I thought he would inadvertently cause trouble because of his competitiveness with Dora and his need for recognition and approval.
11. In reading All That I Am, how much control did the characters have over their own lives? How much control do you think anyone has—or are individuals pawns of those in power?
GENEVIEVE: They struggled to have control and tried to maintain some in very small ways as a symbol of resistance against the regime, like doing 'normal' things such as going to the pub or walking to the park.
Sam: It really was shocking to me how little control they had over their own lives in England.
Sharyn: When you are living under a dictatorship, I don't think you have any control over your life, except to the extent that you choose to do things that comply with the regime.
12. At the novel’s end, Ruth poses the question: "Will the world forget we tried so hard to save it?" How do you answer her?
Cath: Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'yes' - the world is largely unaware of the sacrifices made by the people in the resistance movement.
13. Why do you think that this book has met with so much acclaim and do you think that the book has been worth the acclaim?
GENEVIEVE: It is a well written and researched book about a fascinating period of history with interesting characters, so yes I think it is worth the acclaim, although I wasn't quite as emotionally affected as perhaps I could have been.
MEL: Yes, I do think that the book is worthy of the praised heaped on it. There has been come controversy about it winning The Miles Franklin Award as the award is meant to be about a book predominately set in Australia.
Cath: I think it was a really good book and have enjoyed reading everyone's responses to it. I think I like it more now than when I finished reading it.
Lucy: I think it is very worthy of the acclaim. I loved the way it was written so simply and unsensationally and for me that made it more engaging. It would be great if there were more books like this that gave us easy accessibility to the lives of people who did amazing things but are not remembered in the run of the mill historical accounts.
Sharyn: Now that I have read the book for a second time and we have discussed it, I like the book more and more (I am upgrading my score to 8/10). That's what I love about book club! The book tells a very powerful story in an understated way, which is perhaps why it has received such acclaim. I read Anna Funder's first book, Stasiland, almost ten years ago and loved it. I am curious to go back and read Stasiland again to see if it like it as much now. With Hillary Mantel putting historical fiction in the limelight again, Anna Funder looks like a name to watch.
1.What would you give this book out of 10? Why?
GENEVIEVE: 7/10. I enjoyed this book and read it very quickly. It took a little while to get into it but then I was hooked. I really liked the character of Dora and thought it was a fascinating account of this period of history from a different perspective, namely the resistance movement in England and France rather than within Germany itself. Sometimes I was a little bit confused about who some of the minor characters were but I found it quite profound in some ways and well written. However it has not been a book that has really 'stayed' with me that much and I haven't really thought it about it much since I finished it, I think it didn't have quite the emotional impact that it could have considering the subject matter.
Michelle: I still haven't finished this book. I am stuck with Toller in a hotel and just can't get into it at all. I figure some pretty horrible things are about to happen to them, especially Dora, so I can't say I'm all that motivated to keep plodding on. I very rarely leave a book unfinished so I'm looking forward to your comments to see if I should keep going.
MEL: 9.5/10 I love this book. I think that it is beautifully crafted and a really very interesting story about a period of history (leading up to WW2) that I haven't previously paid much attention to. On occasions the sections in Toller's hotel room that Michelle refers to above does get bogged down a little bit, hence my hesitation to give the book full marks.
Sam: 6/10 Gee - I took more than three attempts to get into this book - and didn't fall in love with it along the way. I did love the theme and the characters of Dora and Ruth - but felt like the sections in Tollers hotel room were dull. In saying that, I would recommend this book because I think that it shows part of history that isnt well known, and for that reason is worth a read.
Sharyn: 7/10. The book is so well written, researched and historically important that I feel I should have enjoyed it more than I did. Like Gen, the book didn't 'stay' with me and I felt it lacked power given the importance of the topic. I first read this book around September last year and I am furiously re-reading it to refresh my memory as I've read a lot of other books in the meantime. I am enjoying the book a lot more the second time around - in particular, I am finding the peripheral characters a lot easier to follow and enjoying the characters' observations about life and love etc. I hope to come back and answer more of these questions later on in the week as I finish the book.
Cath 7/10 I enjoyed this book and thought it was very well written. I initially found it challenging to navigate the different time periods but it was a challenge that I really enjoyed. I agree with all the previous comments that it was a very interesting look at history from a perspective that I haven't seen before.
Lucy: 8/10 I took a little while to get into it but really enjoyed it. I thought it was easy to understand and remember the historical facts. I read it alongside another book that dealt with the resistance during the second world war so it all fitted in nicely.
Michelle: 6/10 Based on Mel's 9.5 rating (wow!) I dedicated some time and concentrated on this book, and after around page 120 it started to pick up, and I have to say I raced through the rest completely captivated - like Sharyn says, another thing to love about book club! What an incredible, gut wrenching story. I have to agree with all your comments below, the story, the characters and the questions they raised are all quite affecting. For me, the let down of this novel was the dual view points. I would have preferred Ruth tell us the whole story, and Toller's input come through his autobiography that she was reading. Toller as a narrator, or even as a character, didn't do a lot for me. Did you see what Dora saw in him? I couldn't see the magnificence about him, but I don't know anything of him in real life. Has anyone read any of his work? Another part that didn't really flow for me was that Ruth's older character was so different from her younger self. She changes from being a wallflower, carried along by the others to being 'plucky and spunky' as Mel so rightly puts it. Maybe those changes can be attributed to what happens, but I think a person's characteristics are usually there already and just heightened as time goes by. I just couldn't see them as the same person. And the only other thing I wanted to say was that the descriptive parts about Sydney made me so incredibly homesick, they were so beautifully evocative. OH, and just to add a little bit more, according to the internet (I just can't help googling these people) in real life it's possible that Toller's suicide was actually a murder too... Anna Funder makes it clear without a doubt that it was suicide but it does make the whole saga so much more sinister (if that's even possible)
2.All That I Am deals with a part of history that has slipped into obscurity for many of us. Does the novel suggest that we've failed to learn the lessons of this history?
GENEVIEVE: Yikes that is a big question! Perhaps?!
MEL: I'm not sure if that is what the novel is suggesting, but it is unsurprising that the lead up to the war in Europe has slipped somewhat into obscurity given the mammoth and horrendous events that followed from 1939 to 1945
Sam: Like Mel, Im not sure if thats what the novel is suggesting - but I was really intrigued by the topic, and amazed that I hadn't ever come across the topic - or even given it much thought. Really highlighting that this part of history, for me, had slipped into obscurity.
Sharyn: The fact that a lot of people aren't familiar with the resistance movement immediately after WW1 leading up to the rise of the Nazi party and WW2 doesn't necessarily mean that we've failed to learn the lessons of history. It seems that most literature and cinema has focused on the resistance movement during WW2 (Charlotte Gray by Sebastien Faulks comes immediately to mind) and, as Mel said, it is unsurprising that it has slipped off the radar given the events of WW2 that followed. Is this period of history a reminder of how Hitler's rise might have been avoided if the world had listened to and acted upon what the resistance were saying earlier on? While Britain etc gave exile to the resistance leaders, they were restricted from engaging in political activities which affected their influence while in exile. One quote that stands out for me is: "The British government was insisting on dealing with Hitler as a reasonable fellow, as if hoping he'd turn into one". It's hard to accept that, even if we do have the benefit of hindsight. I certainly don't feel knowledgeable enough in the area of international relations to make any meaningful comments, but perhaps lessons were learned and this period of history influenced world leaders in the way that they dealt with other dictators more pro-actively and aggressively post WW2 (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). I could be missing the point though.
Cath: I find the whole topic of the rise of Nazi Germany so fascinating and I found this book a real insight into how such a powerful force can assert itself - influencing not just it's own population but also the leaders of other powerful nations. How does this happen? Could it happen again? Do we ever learn from the lessons of history?
Lucy: I don't think it is suggesting we have failed to learn the lessons of history but it is highlighting how 'blind' people/ governments were to what was going on in Germany despite numerous attempts by people to tell what was really happening.
3.The author has invented a plot using elements which are real, but it points to different causes for certain events, particularly those in the room in Bloomsbury, from which the real-life inquest drew another conclusion. To what extent to you think that Funder has written All That I Am as a kind of detective work? Can it be argued that the work of a novelist and a detective are similar, both having to imagine the motivations of others?
GENEVIEVE: In reading the book it is difficult to tell what elements are 'fiction' or 'non-fiction', but I am sure it involved Funder undertaking lots of research and imaginative detective work.
MEL: This is difficult to answer as I came to the book 100% cold on the story, but I do agree with Gen that I'm sure Funder put a great deal of time and effort into her research, and this book presents as her hypothesis on what actually happened.
Cath: The book was so well researched and so authentic which was part of its appeal.
Lucy: I also read the book not knowing how much of it was based in truth until reading Funder's notes at the end. I agree with Cath that it was incredibly well researched, many of the conversations being taken directly from other sources and that this made it so much more engaging. I don't think a novelist and detective are similar. Funder is not attempting to solve the bloomsbury bit or in any way trying to force us to believe her take on it. I liked how she dealt with that and it felt very much as if Ruth would be able to visualise what actually happened knowing Dora so well and living with that constant fear that something of that sort would happen.
4.To what degree do you think the characters in All That I Am are ordinary people doing extraordinary things? Is your reading of the novel affected by knowing that some of the characters are based on real people?
GENEVIEVE: Well they seemed pretty extraordinary to me, especially Dora.Yes it definitely affected my engagement with the novel, knowing they were based on real people.
MEL: I too found Dora to be quite an amazing and individual person. It heightened my enjoyment of the book knowing that it was based on real people.
Sam: The fact that the characters were based on real people was what kept me reading this book! I really was inspired by the actions of Dora and Ruth - they made me want to be more brave in my own life.
Sharyn: The main characters didn't seem very ordinary to me - they were all very talented quite apart from the fact that they were doing extraordinary things. I also enjoyed reading about some of the famous people that the group associated with - such as Albert Einstein and W.H. Auden - as this made me realise just how influential the group was.
Cath: the characters were all very inspiring. It did make me wonder which side I would be on if I found myself in the same situation. I would like to think that I would be a brave resistance fighter but when I think about how I face the huge challenges of our own time (I don't do anything extraordinary to help refugees, or combat climate change or a million other moral challenges) I think I realise that I would never be a Dora.
Lucy: It is always inspiring to read about people like Dora and Ruth and yes, I definitely think it is more engaging knowing they are real people. I loved the way other more famous people were referred to in the book, with no fanfare, because that did show you that these were ordinary (albeit intelligent and determined) people doing extraordinary things.
5.With reference to Toller, Dora asks Ruth, 'Do you think if you love someone there are parts of them you should pretend are not there?' How does the novel deal with the way in which loving someone can blind you to the reality of them?
GENEVIEVE: Well Ruth 'chose' to be blind to the fact that Hans was gay, and that he was a Nazi sympathiser. I was quite fascinated by the relationship between Toller and Dora and their need for each other and yet their need for other people too.
Lucy: I felt that was Dora's way of loving unconditionally. She was not pretending parts of Toller were not there. She confronted him with them and then accepted and tried to understand them. It was one of the reasons for Toller's obsession with her.
Sharyn: Like Lucy, I don't think that Dora was blind to the reality of Toller. She was the one person who truly understood his insecurities, self doubt, narcissism, depression and desperate need for approval and loved him in spite of it. It was Ruth who was blind to Hans' reality - his homosexuality and his tretchery.
6. The novel is told in past and present, and the voices of two characters, Ruth and Ernst. What do these different viewpoints add to the telling?
GENEVIEVE: I was quite engaged with the story of Ruth in Sydney, less so with Ernst in New York.
MEL: As above. Normally I can be irritated when a book starts and ends with and continually refers back to an elderly character, but not so in this book. I loved 'old' Ruth and I enjoyed knowing that due to all she had seen and survived that she had become very plucky and spunky.
Sharyn: Ruth was a wise woman and I enjoyed her viewpoint. Plucky is such a good way of describing her, Mel. It was a reminder that there are a lot of migrants in Australia who have experienced things that we can only imagine. Her pedestrian (but safe!) life in Australia was such a contrast to her exciting but dangerous life in Europe. I feel that she was a more trustworthy voice than Toller, who was very self-absorbed and selfish. However, Toller's voice gave us a greater insight into his insecurities and flaws than the story would otherwise have conveyed and so I think the two viewpoints were important.
Cath: I really enjoyed the way the book navigated the past and present. I also felt (like Sharyn) that to meet Ruth in her old age in Sydney, one would never guess at what her life had been and how we can never know what people have experienced.
Lucy: I suppose Ruth's character in the present is the only truly authentic bit as she was a friend of Funder's. I agree with Sharn that it is amazing to think that there are people going about their daily lives who have lived in such contrast to how they live now. I think it worked well having the different view points and the different times. I sometimes had to remind myself that Toller's part was told so shortly after the event and that at the time the true atrocities of what went on in Germany had not happened.
7. Describe Dora. How did Ruth see her? What about Ernst? Discuss their relationships. How did Dora influence Ruth? How did Ernst influence Dora? Why was she so devoted to him? Dora saw Ernst as a hero. Do you think she was braver than he was?
GENEVIEVE: Dora was a fascinating and brave woman.
MEL: I think that Dora originally saw Ernst as a hero, but yes she was far braver (and more creative in terms of the way she lived her life) than he was. Dora is a wonderfully drawn character.
Sharyn: I thought Dora (together with Bertie) was the most committed to the cause and the bravest. She was far braver than Toller because she risked her life many times in the name of the cause including twice to save his manuscript. There's one passage in the book where Dora talks about conquering fear of death as a way of standing up to a dangerous enemy. Toller says he doesn't want to die but he's prepared to die and Dora says it's hard not to want to die sometimes. I think she was affected more by what was happening in Germany than he was - probably because he had his artistry to fall back on whereas politics was her whole life. She worshipped Toller because he had the unique power to move and unite people to support the resistance through his charisma and artistry, whereas she was a behind-the-scenes type of person. In turn, Ruth worshipped Dora because she admired her fearlessness and her commitment and the fact that she wasn't doing it for fame, status or personal gain.
8. What were the forces that held Dora, Ruth, Ernst, Hans, and their friend Bertie together? How much did their youth contribute to their idealism? What kept them from falling under the spell of Hitler like so many of their contemporaries?
MEL: I asked myself that last question as I was reading the book. Their intellect perhaps? Naturally their youth made them feel invincible.
Cath: I think this is a fascinating question and have alluded to this in one of my previous responses. Why did some people resist Hitler when so many were influenced by him. I think being young and childless is a big reason. Once you have a family, protecting your family becomes such a driver of your actions that I think you are more likely to seek refuge in the promises of Nazi Germany than to join a resistance movement (or is that just a cop out?)
Sharyn: I think the forces that kept the group together were idealism, passion, commitment and a strong sense of fairness and justice. It hadn't occurred to me that it could be their youth and lack of responsibility that contributed to their idealism (I assumed it was an innate characteristic), but that's a good point. Both Toller and Dora and Ruth and Dora discussed the baby issue and the general consensus was that you couldn't bring a baby into their world. I agree with Cath that it's much easier to compromise your beliefs when you have a family to care for and protect.
9. Would you call Dora, Ernst, and their friends inspiring or foolish? Do people like Dora and Ernst make a difference in the world? What drives someone to sacrifice her life for a cause?
GENEVIEVE: Inspiring, and yes I think people like this make a difference in the world.
MEL: I found Dora to be very inspiring, and too Ernst to a lesser extent.
Sam: I agree with Genevieve - I think that people like Dora do make a difference in the world. I think that people who are driven to sacrifice their life for a cause are unique individuals and act like this when the life they want is threatened.
Cath: I found Dora, Toller and Ruth all inspiring but I'm not so sure about how much they made a difference. Did Dora's death influence history in any way or was she just a martyr for a futile cause? I would like to think she made a difference but Hitler became so powerful, WW2 and the genocide of millions of Jews still happened.
Lucy: I think people like this definitely make a difference. Dora may have only been a small cog in the world but they all did enough to make Hitler and his top officials sit up and listen to them and ultimately silence them. I recently read 'Double Cross' which is a fascinating true account of how a small group of spies and resistance workers almost singlehandedly brought about the success of the allied invasion that was the turning point and ultimately the end of the second world war. I think perhaps we do not understand how much influence these sorts of people had because it is only very recently that files about them and their lives and the work they did have been made public.
Sharyn: Definitely inspiring. Passion, commitment and fearlessness leads people to sacrifice their life for a cause. They definitely made a difference although obviously not enough of a difference to prevent what happened.
10. What caused Hans to act as he did? Did you see this coming?
GENEVIEVE: Fear, and yes there were lots of hints
MEL: Yes he was fearful. I wasn't surprised by what Hans did, but I was a little more focussed on the fact that Ruth was going to find out that he was gay!
Sam: I was shocked by what Hans did - not about the gay thing - but definitely about way he sold out his friends! Definitely a weak character.
Cath: I think Hans character added authenticity and depth to the novel because not everyone can be a strong moral character like Dora. Hans was flawed and disappointing.
Lucy: I didn't see such a drastic betrayal coming although you could see he was desperate to find a place for himself in the world. The transcript of the first report on his turning was very interesting. He was as intelligent and determined as the other characters but without the same strong moral compass.
Sharyn: Hans was a deeply insecure and socially ambitious person who was constantly trying to prove his worth, probably as a result of his modest upbringing. He needed to feel important and feel that he was succeeding in life and his betrayal was a way of achieving this. It was quite obvious that he was the weak link in the group, although I didn't necessarily think he would deliberately betray anyone; I thought he would inadvertently cause trouble because of his competitiveness with Dora and his need for recognition and approval.
11. In reading All That I Am, how much control did the characters have over their own lives? How much control do you think anyone has—or are individuals pawns of those in power?
GENEVIEVE: They struggled to have control and tried to maintain some in very small ways as a symbol of resistance against the regime, like doing 'normal' things such as going to the pub or walking to the park.
Sam: It really was shocking to me how little control they had over their own lives in England.
Sharyn: When you are living under a dictatorship, I don't think you have any control over your life, except to the extent that you choose to do things that comply with the regime.
12. At the novel’s end, Ruth poses the question: "Will the world forget we tried so hard to save it?" How do you answer her?
Cath: Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'yes' - the world is largely unaware of the sacrifices made by the people in the resistance movement.
13. Why do you think that this book has met with so much acclaim and do you think that the book has been worth the acclaim?
GENEVIEVE: It is a well written and researched book about a fascinating period of history with interesting characters, so yes I think it is worth the acclaim, although I wasn't quite as emotionally affected as perhaps I could have been.
MEL: Yes, I do think that the book is worthy of the praised heaped on it. There has been come controversy about it winning The Miles Franklin Award as the award is meant to be about a book predominately set in Australia.
Cath: I think it was a really good book and have enjoyed reading everyone's responses to it. I think I like it more now than when I finished reading it.
Lucy: I think it is very worthy of the acclaim. I loved the way it was written so simply and unsensationally and for me that made it more engaging. It would be great if there were more books like this that gave us easy accessibility to the lives of people who did amazing things but are not remembered in the run of the mill historical accounts.
Sharyn: Now that I have read the book for a second time and we have discussed it, I like the book more and more (I am upgrading my score to 8/10). That's what I love about book club! The book tells a very powerful story in an understated way, which is perhaps why it has received such acclaim. I read Anna Funder's first book, Stasiland, almost ten years ago and loved it. I am curious to go back and read Stasiland again to see if it like it as much now. With Hillary Mantel putting historical fiction in the limelight again, Anna Funder looks like a name to watch.